Creation or Evolution? MCC Instructor offering Creation Science class
Thu, 2007-03-29 17:54
#1
Creation or Evolution? MCC Instructor offering Creation Science class
Thu, 2007-03-29 17:54
#2
quote:
Jim Garretson has loved science for as long as he can remember. As a child he staged chemical magical shows for his family. He studied all sorts of things under the microscope. He gazed at the heavens in wonder – especially when the things he learned in school differed with what he learned in church.The McCook Community College Science Instructor said by the time he was in the eighth grade he decided to become a science teacher. “Discovery was just a part of my life,” he said. Yet, he also grew up in a Christian environment. Throughout grade school, high school and into college, there was always conflict between the teachings of the church and the science in the classroom.
“For many years this was a problem for me. Evolution just didn’t make good sense and for a number of reasons,” he said.
Then about 10 years ago, he attended a seminar on creation science. Garretson said creation science looks at the same evidence that evolutionary science looks at, but from a different perspective, that is to say, from a Biblical perspective.
Now Garretson wants to offer that perspective to students – many who still struggle with the same conflicts he encountered. This fall, he will teach “Physics 2990: Creation Science” as a special topics class. He knows that offering the course will likely stir up the sometimes controversial debate of “Creation vs. Evolution” which asks the fundamental questions: “How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?”
Read it [url=http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/cgi-bin/articles/articlearchiver.pl?1600...
Thu, 2007-03-29 18:02
#3
quote:
Originally posted by Snuckles:
[b]“For many years this was a problem for me. Evolution just didn’t make good sense and for a number of reasons,” he said.[/b]
No wonder. Evolution is a difficult subject. Especially if you spend too much time in church while still young and in a formative stage. It can affect your mental outlook.
[url=http://www.toxiccustard.com/cards/shitforbrains.gif]image[/url]
![http://www.toxiccustard.com/cards/shitforbrains.gif]image[/url]](http://www.toxiccustard.com/cards/shitforbrains.gif]image[/url]){kind=link}
ETA: This is bizarre! My picture shows up once, then disappears when you refresh the page!! This is God Almighty's work, paying me back for mocking His great work! This proves that there is Intelligent Design behind babble!!!
Wait a minute, what am I saying...
[ 29 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Thu, 2007-03-29 18:41
#4
quote:
“How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?”
This is a question that no scientist can answer. Of course, neither can the creationsists.
Thu, 2007-03-29 19:36
#5
Le T
I'm not sure the binary of "purposeful intelligence vs. series of random cosmic accidents" is that useful.
Thu, 2007-03-29 22:17
#6
M. Spector
I think it's extremely useful in understanding where this guy's head is at (as we used to say).
If he thinks that Darwinian evolution consists of "a series of random cosmic accidents" he obviously fell asleep during science class.
Fri, 2007-03-30 06:48
#7
quote:
The class we will explore many topics relating to many different areas of science including:· The age of the earth, the earth’s beginning, and where the earth is heading
· The Garden of Eden and life on earth before the flood and the major changes which have taken place since that time
· Dinosaurs in the past as well as in the present
· The flood, ice ages, mountain formation, coal and oil formation, and the Grand Canyon
· History of evolution through the ages and the effect it has had on the world as well as many very influential people
· What is taught in school textbooks, without factual supportive evidence?
So one has to wonder what kind of evidence he will be presenting. Admittedly there is not enough detail in the article to know exactly what he plans to teach but the list above looks like the usual young Earth, bible literalism. If he can't make his case without quoting the bible/torah/koran then what is he doing except teaching from textbooks without factual supportive evidence?
Fri, 2007-03-30 17:08
#8
Maysie
quote:
Dinosaurs in the past as well as in the present
WTF?!?!?!?!?
[img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-03-30 19:11
#9
Aren't they saying that birds are leftover dinosaurs ?.
Fri, 2007-03-30 19:30
#10
Birds, crocodiles, sharks, some lizards ... but the creation people like to look at the Loch Ness and Bigfoot/Yeti type of thing.
They seem to think that finding these creatures being coexistant with modern humans would blow evolution out of the water -- or the Kokanee ice fields, what have you.
Fri, 2007-03-30 20:25
#11
I don't think creationists particularly care about whether dinosaurs are still around. Their thing is "proving" that humans and dinosaurs were around at the same time by questionable fossil evidence.
Fri, 2007-03-30 20:55
#12
If God wanted people to believe in creationism, then He or She or It would not have planted the fossils in so many places nor would He She It have made a fossil record that reads like a book from start to now.
I don't know about the 10 commandments but the great almighty wrote this giant book and the heretic Creationists are openly defying HIM HER IT!
I want a ringside seat when the WRATHFUL GOD of the old testiment catches up with the Creationists.
It may not be pretty but I still want to watch.
Fri, 2007-03-30 21:01
#13
For Christ's sake (literally)! These fuckwads are at it again!
I'm not against spirituality or its morals or ethics. Nor am I against any serious philosophical discussion or honest scientific investigation and even theorizing about the super-natural, para-normal or meta-physical.
But this so-called "scientific creationism" being push these days is little more than a cynical con job by the religious right to undermine freedom of thought and concsience. Period.
There have been a couple of similar discussions
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001728]here [/url]and[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001737]h....
Again, I will say here, what I said there:
quote:
The fact is evolution is more than just a theory; it’s a hard and established fact. While there are many theories about evolution and the origins of life and where it’s headed, evolution itself—natural selection, adaptation and modification, the old dying out to make way for the new, etc.—are irrefutable since they are around us everywhere every day. It's a fact of life, and all schools of science, as well as any sane reasonable school of thought, recognize it.To deny it is like denying that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, etc. there are all kinds of theories as to why, or even how, the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth, but no one disputes that that's actually what's going on.
Yet that is exactly what these so-called “creationists” and “intelligent design” trash are out to do—and in so doing undermining the long-fought-for freedom of thought, scientific reason and burden of proof open free public education, and instead driving society back to a totalitarian era of prejudice, persecution and taboo.
That is and always has been THE ONE goal of the Religious Right—the iron-fisted entrenchment of rigid unquestioning obedience to corporate capitalism and the state institutions that govern it (and us).
"Creationism" isn't even a theory. It's a twisted perversion of the myths of the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, that provide the basis for life values to be used for a vicious self-serving political agenda.
Any decent religious scholar or practitioner--and I have talked with many--will tell you that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors by people who were trying to interpret visions, which they believed were divinely inspired, to spell out a powerful code of ethics and value system for people.
That's why the myths, fables and legends of the bible don't correspond very well to practical reality, but the values and morals definitely do--and that's what important basis of its message.
In other words, a real Christian, Moslem or Jew (the three religions based on the bible) couldn't care less whether there actually was a piece of real estate someplace known as the Garden of Eden. What's important is the symbolism of the garden and the values it represented and the life lessons to be learned from its story.
It's not practical earth science, and it never was intended to be. Twisting into some literal interpretation was the key way the churches of the feudal dark ages and the colonialist era used to terrorize people, suppress free thought and keep them in line.
The corporate "Christian right" in the US is trying to do the same thing today. Pushing the philosophical basis of the bible as earth science is not only an insult to people, science and free thought, but an insult to biblical values themselves, and whoever does this, as far as I'm concerned, should condemned as a heretic.
It's interesting to note the "Christian right" that tries to shove this crap down people's throats doesn't seem to be encumbered by any of the biblical values, such as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule and the practices of compassion, love thy neighbour (regardless of who thy neighbour is), forgiving sins and transgressions and, most importantly, judge not lest ye be judged.
Instead they kill, main, torture, slander, imprison and deport anybody who isn't exactly like them, doesn't swear total allegiance to the US government and blindly follow the dictates of Corporate America.
The ideas of God and divinity are, and never have been, intended to be proven or disproven scientifically. Any ethical religious scholar will tell you they are based on faith--something that people developed thousands of years ago as way of gaining confidence and self-assurance in the face of often extreme adversity. And they are still being used for this today.
Sat, 2007-03-31 03:45
#14
N.Beltov
quote:
Steppenwolf Allende: The ideas of God and divinity are, and never have been, intended to be proven or disproven scientifically. Any ethical religious scholar will tell you they are based on faith--something that people developed thousands of years ago as way of gaining confidence and self-assurance in the face of often extreme adversity. And they are still being used for this today.
Religious views have been permanently affected by the development of science over the last number of centuries. Even the Catholic Church, e.g., has changed its views on a number of issues; in 1616 the church denounced the Copernican system [that the earth, along with the other planets, orbits the sun and not the other way round] but no church that wants new members holds such a view today. So too with "faith".
It is the permanent success of the scientific world view that narrows the religious views of some people to primitive "faith". They're losing the battle of ideas and the platform for unsophisticated religions is getting narrower and narrower. Religious "faith" is something rather new in the history of religion; it has come about as a way to retreat to a domain untouched and untouchable by scientific and logical thinking. But it was not always so, I think.
Neither the ancients nor the people of the middle ages would, I think, talk about "faith" in the same way that it is talked about today. They did not have to face an educated and skeptical public, with access to contrary and differing views, nor did political democracy flex its powerful muscles against authoritarianism with such success. Things have changed, forever. As Micheal Shermer, e.g., has pointed out in [i]How We Believe[/i], religious people now couch their "faith" in terms that are more scientifically reputable.
They're losing. We should make sure that our past victories on the road to a superstition-free society are known far and wide. In short, we should rub their noses in it and remind them that if they retreat to "faith" and make THAT their religion then they should stay the fuck out of the classroom, stop polluting the minds of children, and accept defeat graciously.
I would be quick to add that "faith" alone is not my view of religion and I still derive some spiritual nourishment from my own church and religious practices.
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sat, 2007-03-31 04:52
#15
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
In short, we should rub their noses in it and remind them that if they retreat to "faith" and make THAT their religion then they should stay the fuck out of the classroom, stop polluting the minds of children, and accept defeat graciously. [/b]
Does that leave a place in the classroom etc. for religions that are not solely faith-based (in the sense you defined)?
Sat, 2007-03-31 05:26
#16
quote:
Yet that is exactly what these so-called “creationists” and “intelligent design” trash are out to do—and in so doing undermining the long-fought-for freedom of thought...
Freedom of thought, eh? Except for blinkered Creationists, I presume? They're wrong, but they're free to be wrong, aren't they? Evolution is not an article of our state faith.
In fact, your connection of the scientific to the political is interesting, but not based in any history of political theory. Popper may have provided the best connection between the two, but the limitations in his thinking have been pointed out by his various critics. There is no mention in the foundational documents of American or Canadian democracy of science or any other investigative creed. I do not believe the progenitors of the modern notion that folks are essentially equal in their desires and needs ever required (nor sought) a strictly scientific justification. Rather, that "self-evidence" and individual [i]conscience[/i] are the basis of the recognition of equality are more prominent ideas in the history of political thought.
The problem with linking the scientific with the political is that a strictly scientific approach has difficulty justifying an ethics of compassion. There is no "objective" and measurable reason for me not to beat you to death when I see you on the street. In fact, from a purely "evolutionary" standpoint it could be (variously) a prime example of genetically produced selfishness, a demonstration of the superiority of my genes and a chance to increase my chances of survival by reducing the number of competitors for food and sexual partners. Science has difficulty answering normative questions like "what [i]ought[/i] I to do?"
Sat, 2007-03-31 05:41
#17
N.Beltov
quote:
unionist:
Does that leave a place in the classroom etc. for religions that are not solely faith-based (in the sense you defined)?
Good one. Where do you draw the line? We've evolved in our thinking about public schools to the point where almost all religious "education" has been removed. Maybe that is only partly as a result of the advance of secular thinking and is also partly the result of religious "competition" where the warring factions agree to terms.
But private schools, which are publicly subsidized in Ontario and Manitoba at least, do have religion in the classroom. I can't see that ending anytime soon.
Ideally there would be no religion in school. Kids would have [i]compulsory[/i] courses in Critical Thinking [Bullshit 101 or whatever] and so on. However, those days are still a long way off.
I don't have any principled objection to familliarizing kids with religion [i]as an object of study[/i] such as with the history of religion and so on. If religion isn't going to go away then why not arm kids with the ability to make intelligent decisions, on their own, about religion. Unenlightened parents, however, would never allow that.
My own church provides, among other things, sex education for the kids. It's so popular that some parents take the courses as well. What the public schools won't provide, in this case, is something the church will.
Sat, 2007-03-31 05:49
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]In other words, a real Christian, Moslem or Jew (the three religions based on the bible) couldn't care less whether there actually was a piece of real estate someplace known as the Garden of Eden. What's important is the symbolism of the garden and the values it represented and the life lessons to be learned from its story.[/b]
Here was the story of the Garden of Eden as I recall it:
1. God orders women and men to go around naked and ignorant - above all to taste of all trees, but not the Tree of Knowledge.
2. The Devil (serpent) tempts Eve, resulting in both sexes tasting of the Tree of Knowledge.
3. God freaks out and condemns man to live by labour, the sweat of his brow (rather than just plucking fruit); and woman to give birth in pain.
With the greatest of respect to your desire to distinguish good religion from bad religion, could you enlighten me as to what profound moral lesson is to be derived from God's transparent (and, thank the Devil, unsuccessful) effort to keep humanity ignorant?
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:04
#19
N.Beltov
quote:
unionist: With the greatest of respect to your desire to distinguish good religion from bad religion, could you enlighten me as to what profound moral lesson is to be derived from God's transparent (and, thank the Devil, unsuccessful) effort to keep humanity ignorant?
I'll take a stab at it ... just for fun ...
We're all [i]inherently[/i] "fallen" creatures and, therefore, need to be "risen" by some supersensory being in order to be "good". That's why you should welcome Jesus into your heart, you heathen bastard.
He he.
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:24
#20
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
We're all [i]inherently[/i] "fallen" creatures...[/b]
No, humans are created without knowledge, and they only "fall" when they illegally acquire it - and start to see through the God's tyranny (which requires ignorance to sustain). So humans are inherently slaves, but become free through self-education and a conscious act of rebellion.
quote:
[b]and, therefore, need to be "risen" by some supersensory being in order to be "good". That's why you should welcome Jesus into your heart, you heathen bastard.[/b]
First of all, Mario "Jesus" Dumont doesn't even appear in the Eden story - that's later revisionist history.
Second, it's quite telling that Jesus arrives on the scene, proclaimed as the "Son of God", reinstates "faith" as the criterion for righteousness (in opposition to the "works", that is, the concrete practice, that the descendants of the "fallen" Adam and Eve have learned to cherish), and reviles book-learning and knowledge, thus condemning His followers to slavish ignorance for the rest of time.
I think there is much to be learned from the Garden of Eden and other parables. Trouble is, God and his illegitimate offspring don't come out smelling like fig leaves.
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:35
#21
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Here was the story of the Garden of Eden as I recall it:
1. God orders women and men to go around naked and ignorant - above all to taste of all trees, but not the Tree of Knowledge.
2. The Devil (serpent) tempts Eve, resulting in both sexes tasting of the Tree of Knowledge.
3. God freaks out and condemns man to live by labour, the sweat of his brow (rather than just plucking fruit); and woman to give birth in pain.
With the greatest of respect to your desire to distinguish good religion from bad religion, could you enlighten me as to what profound moral lesson is to be derived from God's transparent (and, thank the Devil, unsuccessful) effort to keep humanity ignorant?[/b]
It might help if we were all a little more exact. The "tree" was the Tree of Knowledge [i]of Good and Evil[/i]. That does change the story somewhat.
In fact, none less than Maimonedes argued in his [i]Guide for the Perplexed[/i] that the eating of the fruit didn't create humanity's moral awareness where there was none, but rather transformed an already existing moral awareness from the one intended us by God to one based in what is "good" and "evil". In other words, the Fall was not about the gaining of a superior moral knowledge, but about moving into a world of ignorance and superstitious moral beliefs that are [i]less[/i] enlightened than our "natural" state.
By no means am I suggesting that Maimonedes reading is the definitive one, however, it does raise some questions about the nature of our moral reasoning. There are profound moral lessons to be found in such questions.
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:43
#22
N.Beltov
i never heard that version when my friend Clive and I went to mass, held on to our parent-provided change, and went for fries with gravy at KFC with happy, guilty hearts rather than chip in to the collection. The Russians have a saying: "Shakespeare or boots". I guess I'm a boots man from way back.
Then again, the only time I've been back to anything resembling a mass was when a girlfriend took me to a service, in another church, where I made the unpopular observation that the transubstatiation doctrine bore a remarkable similarity to a justification for cannibalism.
She ain't my girlfriend anymore. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:51
#23
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Second, it's quite telling that Jesus arrives on the scene, proclaimed as the "Son of God", reinstates "faith" as the criterion for righteousness (in opposition to the "works", that is, the concrete practice, that the descendants of the "fallen" Adam and Eve have learned to cherish), and reviles book-learning and knowledge, thus condemning His followers to slavish ignorance for the rest of time.[/b]
It's more telling that you're talking out of your ass. In fact, a dogma of "faith v. works" or "faith and works", or however you want to pose the question was not definitively layed down by the Biblical figure Jesus. The Catholic Church only came to decide on emphasizing faith based on certain doctrines of St. Paul at the Council of Trent. However, many sects prior to that, and certainly Protestants following, affirm(ed) the necessity of works based - partly - in the writings of St. James, i.e. "Do realise, you senseless man, that faith without good deeds is useless. You surely know that Abraham our father was justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? There you see it: faith and deeds were working together; his faith became perfect by what he did. This is what scripture really means when it says: 'Abraham put his faith in God, and this was counted as making him justified; and that is why he was called the friend of God.' You see now that it is by doing something good, and not only by believing, that a man is justified" (James 2:20-24).
I know you have a hate on for the God folks, but don't misrepresent them.
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-03-31 06:54
#24
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Then again, the only time I've been back to anything resembling a mass was when a girlfriend took me to a service, in another church, where I made the unpopular observation that the transubstatiation doctrine bore a remarkable similarity to a justification for cannibalism.She ain't my girlfriend anymore. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I made a similar quip to my girlfriend at Midnight Mass a couple of C-mas' ago. Perhaps you should date the Irish kind of Catholic - they have a better sense of humour about this stuff.
Sat, 2007-03-31 07:14
#25
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]
In other words, the Fall was not about the gaining of a superior moral knowledge, but about moving into a world of ignorance and superstitious moral beliefs that are [i]less[/i] enlightened than our "natural" state.By no means am I suggesting that Maimonedes reading is the definitive one, however, it does raise some questions about the nature of our moral reasoning. There are profound moral lessons to be found in such questions.[/b]
No doubt.
What are they?
God threatened Adam with death if he ate from the tree.
Afterwards, he commuted the sentence to hard labour for Adam and painful childbearing for Eve.
My hero is the serpent. He is the revolutionary agitator, the activist, the organizer of our times. He told Adam and Eve that God's death-threats were empty and self-serving:
quote:
Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
God's monopoly on moral issues (and on knowledge in general) was irrevocably smashed. It was the first, and arguably the most sweeping, anti-trust action of all time.
Long live the serpent and his ineffable contribution to the forward march of humanity!
Sat, 2007-03-31 07:22
#26
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]It's more telling that you're talking out of your ass. [...] I know you have a hate on for the God folks, but don't misrepresent them.
[/b]
Though I despise religious superstition, I don't insult babblers who are merely expressing their sincerely held beliefs. Do me the same courtesy.
If you don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible, you are quite capable of challenging it, without accusing me of "misrepresenting". Unless, of course, you have found the "true" interpretation, in which case I would appreciate your PM'ing the link to me.
Sat, 2007-03-31 11:48
#27
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
.... Unless, of course, you have found the "true" interpretation, in which case I would appreciate your PM'ing the link to me.
Nay, nay, such a link must be freely shared amongst the community of babblers, adams, eves and others. And how intriguing, given unionist's theory, that such wisdom might be shared from the tongue of a babbler [i]lawyer[/i] named B.L. Zeebub!
(Just a note of caution -- we might want to keep our voices down here. Don't mean to be alarming but I have seen GOD pop up on these boards a time or two.)
Sat, 2007-03-31 11:52
#28
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
[b]
Don't mean to be alarming but I have seen GOD pop up on these boards a time or two.[/b]
Wow! He does spot checks to make sure the level of discussion remains within permissible limits (the lower end of the dumb scale)? That is impressive.
Sat, 2007-03-31 11:58
#29
OMG -- you are [b]so[/b] asking to be smited, er, smoted -- eh, smitten?
Sat, 2007-03-31 12:15
#30
Smut.
Sat, 2007-03-31 12:29
#31
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[quote]If you don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible, you are quite capable of challenging it, without accusing me of "misrepresenting". Unless, of course, you have found the "true" interpretation, in which case I would appreciate your PM'ing the link to me.[/QB]
If there is no right answer, than you have no basis on which to challenge anyone's "religious superstition" - their interpretation is as valid as yours. So why do you spend your time "pouring from the empty into the void"?
Funny, that brings me to the question of "good and evil" raised earlier. The lesson is that our conceptions of "Good and Evil" are a house built on shifting sands and that unless we resist infecting our moral judgement with our desires (to eat the apple) they are forever absent any truth.
The Serpent was no hero, he was just that childish voice inside that says, "I wanna". The basis of all our vanity and self-love. Adam and Eve got sucked right in and lost their objectivity. And isn't the dream of the scientist - to resist all subjective factors, such as desire, or the personality of the observer? Remember, the Genesis story is not about [i]them[/i], it's about [i]you[/i].
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-03-31 12:55
#32
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]
If there is no right answer, than you have no basis on which to challenge anyone's "religious superstition" - their interpretation is as valid as yours.[/b]
I didn't say there's no right answer. There is. It is to be found in the objective world, not in Scripture. There is no right interpretation of Scripture.
quote:
[b]Funny, that brings me to the question of "good and evil" raised earlier. The lesson is that our conceptions of "Good and Evil" are a house built on shifting sands and that unless we resist infecting our moral judgement with our desires (to eat the apple) they are forever absent any truth.[/b]
Pretty creative. What the story [i]says[/i] is that the all-powerful leader dictates what is "good" and "evil", and the masses question Him on pain of death. The fruit of the tree enables them to understand good and evil on their own, rather than having it spoonfed like children with blandishments and threats. The dictator, who now has no further hold on humanity, petulantly expels them from the Great Nest and condemns them to fly on their own.
quote:
[b]Adam and Eve got sucked right in and lost their objectivity. And isn't the dream of the scientist - to resist all subjective factors, such as desire, or the personality of the observer?[/b]
Talk about turning truth on its head! Adam and Eve begin to think for themselves, and you say they have "lost their objectivity"? You want the scientist to "resist ... the personality of the observer", and instead subordinate her scientific spirit to some Superior Being?
That last bit is particularly sad. It reminds me of employers who tell their staff not to unionize because they'll lose the "personal" touch.
Sat, 2007-03-31 13:01
#33
Hahahahahahaha... If there is no right interpretation, than I can't have "turned truth on its head".
You're on a fool's errand...
First you applaud Adam and Eve for "turning truth and established custom on it's head" and then chastise me for doing the same in the same breath as claiming there is no "true" interpretation...
Good one. That's like, supposed to be funny, right?
[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Sat, 2007-03-31 13:10
#34
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
[b]Hahahahahahaha... If there is no right interpretation, than I can't have "turned truth on its head".[/b]
There is no right interpretation of Scripture, but there are many wrong ones. Yours is among them.
I like to quote Scripture. Think of me as the Devil. If it helps.
Sat, 2007-03-31 15:01
#35
Catchfire
Well, some Christians, like John Milton, have interpreted the Eden myth in a much richer way. There is nothing in the scripture to show that Adam & Eve were "ignorant" before they ate from the tree, or even that the Tree of Knowledge makes one "wise"--unless you buy the word of Satan the deceiver. It's a red herring, man, and the dolts fell for it.
There are loads of philosophers, including several atheists like Lacan and Nietzsche, who accept the idea of a moral code with a divine flavour that humans can aspire to and never reach. Lacan called it unbearable splendour. Religion hardly has a monopoly on gesturing towards absolutes.
Now, if you want to talk about the myth's innate misogyny, well, it's hard to get around that.
Sat, 2007-03-31 15:17
#36
Ah, well.
It's just turtles, all the way down.
Sat, 2007-03-31 15:28
#37
N.Beltov
All the way down to what? Turtle droppings?
Sat, 2007-03-31 16:32
#38
Just all the way down. Everyone knows that the cosmic turtles don't need to poo.
Geesh.
The creationist/I.D. debators like to point at the big bang and say "well, what [i]caused [/i] that?" to invoke the necessity of a prime mover of some sort-- usually an old guy with a long white beard.
But, doesn't the existance of a prime mover invoke the necessity of another prime mover?
It's just Gods, all the way down. Or turtles.
I think turtles are more majestic.
Sat, 2007-03-31 16:45
#39
N.Beltov
In the beginning was Pooh.
"Is that me?" said a small bear.
"Yes, that's you," said Christopher Robin, sounding dismayed at the prospect.
"Ha. Imagine that. It all began when I took a dump," said the small bear, feeling awfully proud of himself.
Mon, 2007-04-02 06:52
#40
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]There is no right interpretation of Scripture, but there are many wrong ones. Yours is among them.
I like to quote Scripture. Think of me as the Devil. If it helps.[/b]
Next time I'll be sure to refer to [i]Unionist's Compendeum of Objectively More Correct-er Biblical Interpretations in which the reader will be unsurprised to learn that Unionist really does "like the smell of his own brand".
As for thinking of you as The Devil, I'm afraid you've done nothing to deserve so distinguished an honour.
Mon, 2007-04-02 07:33
#41
B.L.Zeebub, could you please tone the hostility down a bit? I don't think unionist's posts in this thread really warrant it.
On the thread topic...
I've always gotten a kick out of the contradiction in the Adam and Eve story. Namely, if Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before they ate the fruit, then how can God hold them responsible for disobeying him, when they couldn't have known that it was wrong to do so?
Mon, 2007-04-02 08:04
#42
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
My hero is the serpent. He is the revolutionary agitator, the activist, the organizer of our times. He told Adam and Eve that God's death-threats were empty and self-serving:[/b]
I've always found the Gnostic version of the story more compelling than the traditional one, in which the serpent, as a symbol of wisdom incarnate, is seeking to free humanity from the tyranny of a petty, false god.
Tue, 2007-04-03 11:32
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]B.L.Zeebub, could you please tone the hostility down a bit? I don't think unionist's posts in this thread really warrant it.
Have you checked the objectivity of your interpretation against Unionist's secret truth decoder? As far as I'm concerned, yours is one of many wrong interpretatations.
Tue, 2007-04-03 12:45
#44
Can someone please explain to me one thing? How can it possibly be that Adam and Eve had children named Cain and Able and how were Cain and Able (two males) able to procreate? I am seriously looking for an answer to this. Seems to me this is a giant hole in the bible theory no?
Re: ethics and morality - they do not have to be religion based. I am an atheist and I can bet you a million dollars I and my fellow atheists have far more compassion than your typical Born again Christian.
Tue, 2007-04-03 13:03
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Can someone please explain to me one thing? How can it possibly be that Adam and Eve had children named Cain and Able and how were Cain and Able (two males) able to procreate? [/b]
I don't know about Abel (he was killed by Cain likely before siring any children), but Cain had several women to choose from:
quote:
Genesis 5:4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
So Cain either made it with one of his sisters - or with his mother. Nothing unscientific about that.
The bigger "hole" in the Bible story is the bit about God creating everything. That part is a hoot.
Tue, 2007-04-03 13:05
#46
[url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=4&version=9] And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch [/url]
It wasn't just Cain and Able, it's just that it apparently isn't important to point out where women came from or what their names were.
Cathcfire's bang on with the misogyny part here
Tue, 2007-04-03 13:41
#47
The fact is, though, if you read those chapters of Genesis closely, you can see why they don't add up in practicality.
For example, in Verse 14:
quote:
14Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me
So if Adam and eve's family were the only humans around at the time, why would Cain be worried about anyone wanting to kill him after being sent away?
In Verse 15, God supposedly confirms this:
quote:
15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Here, the Almighty is putting some kind of protective warning around Cain, so strangers wouldn't attack him.
Obviously, there were other's around not related to his family.
Then we get:
quote:
16And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.17And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
18And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
19And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
20And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
25And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Obviously, even if you assume the sexist nature of the writings that the lineage of women is viewed as less important (which it obviously is), it's quite clear that in order for the males in this family to find so many other wives, there's the assumption that other people not related to the family were around as well.
So much for interpreting the Bible as some sort of practical document!
Tue, 2007-04-03 13:54
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b][...] it's quite clear that in order for the males in this family to find so many other wives, there's the assumption that other people not related to the family were around as well.
[/b]
I read all your verses and can't find your conclusion. Where does it say that there were people not related to Adam and Eve's family? Where is the assumption? Show me.
For that matter, where does it say the contrary? Who says Adam and Eve were the only humans that God created - or that there weren't other humans that "evolved" side by side with God's creatures?
A lot of assumptions get made that aren't even backed up by the written word.
[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Tue, 2007-04-03 14:12
#49
Okay now I am totally confused. Supposedly Adam and Eve were the first people created by God. So he/she/it then created some other people not mentioned at all until down the road when it becomes convenient lest we discover that it isn't physically possible for Cain and Abel to procreate or the other option that Abel had sex with his mother? Is the bible hiding incest? It's either that or God created a bunch of other people whom apparently he just forgot to mention.
Speaking of which, how is it possible for all those animals to fit on an ark? And did that ark include dinosuars? Someone needs to ask Stockwell Day about this.
Tue, 2007-04-03 14:27
#50
Catchfire
quote:
The bigger "hole" in the Bible story is the bit about God creating everything. That part is a hoot.
Me, the part I find the funniest is Adam's presupposed knowledge of everything he sees, even though they've been around for awhile and he's the newcomer.
quote:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
(I wish I had a help meet)
There's a thread about Thomas King elsewhere. He's the first one I thought of:
quote:
Ahdamn is busy. He is naming everything.You are a microwave oven, Ahdamn tells the Elk.
Nope, says that Elk. Try Again.You are a garage sale, Ahdamn tells the Bear.
We got to get you some glasses, says the Bear.You are a telephone book, Ahdamn tells the Cedar Tree.
You’re getting closer, says the Cedar Tree.
[...]
Your apples! says First Woman, and she gives a nice red apple to Ahdamn.
Yes, says that GOD, and that one waves his hands around. All this stuff is mine. I made it.
News to me, says First Woman. But there’s plenty of good stuff here. We can share it. You want some fried chicken?
[i]Green Grass, Running Water[/i]
[ 03 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]
Tue, 2007-04-03 14:52
#51
Now for a few responses:
quote:
Freedom of thought, eh? Except for blinkered Creationists, I presume? They're wrong, but they're free to be wrong, aren't they? Evolution is not an article of our state faith.
Well, wha-d-ya-know B.L. Zeebub LLDrip. What a gimpy response.
You know damn well that people are free to believe whatever they feel comfortable with, including the blinkered “creationists.” My objection is obviously to the brutal authoritarian imposition of a vicious political agenda by twisting Biblical folklore into some pseudo-scientific con job and shoving it down people’s throats via state sanction, like so many of those blinkered creationists are trying to do, especially in the US (like trying to make it an article of state faith).
quote:
The problem with linking the scientific with the political is that a strictly scientific approach has difficulty justifying an ethics of compassion. There is no "objective" and measurable reason for me not to beat you to death when I see you on the street. In fact, from a purely "evolutionary" standpoint it could be (variously) a prime example of genetically produced selfishness, a demonstration of the superiority of my genes and a chance to increase my chances of survival by reducing the number of competitors for food and sexual partners. Science has difficulty answering normative questions like "what ought I to do?"
Why is this necessarily the case? There is no shortage of scientific research that shows that a greater sense of self-awareness, higher reasoning, community and the need for cooperation and mutual alliance, leading to respect, conscience and morals and compassion, with others are all features of more highly evolved creatures.
The scenario you describe can certainly be applied to insects and to varying degrees to reptiles and to a lesser extent mammals. But the closer various species get to humans you find less and less of this minimalist and narrow survival mode and more and more of a sense of family, community and mutual survival. So it seems obvious to me that ethics and morals are just as much part of the evolutionary process as anything else.
quote:
unionist: With the greatest of respect to your desire to distinguish good religion from bad religion, could you enlighten me as to what profound moral lesson is to be derived from God's transparent (and, thank the Devil, unsuccessful) effort to keep humanity ignorant?
I wasn’t distinguishing between good and bad religion (there are fairly few examples out there of good religion). Rather, again, I was referring to various writings of religious scholars that have read over the years about the absolute dishonesty of the religious right’s twisting of what is basically a philosophical document written in symbolism and metaphors into fraudulent pseudo-science to push a ruthless and exploitative totalitarian corporate capitalist agenda and impose it on everyone via state authoritarianism.